Question to the "science is constantly changing" fans

[MormonVideoGame]

Fairmormon says, "The state of science is constantly changing. What science declared to be "true" in the 19th century is not "true" in the 21st century. It is reasonable to expect that some things that we consider to be scientifically "true" now may be revised according to additional knowledge that is gained in the future." I completely agree with fairmormon. Science is self-correcting, and that is the beauty of science.  However, some folks love to remind us that when they don't like a scientific theory such as global warming or evolution. 

Please point to a superseded scientific theory that 

1. was backed up by hundreds of research papers

2. made predictions 

3. made scientists highly confident

4. survived tough scientific scrutiny for at least two decades 

5. was used in multiple fields of science

6. was confirmed by observation 

7. Falsifiable 

8. was accepted by the scientific community since modern Physics began 

but years later overturned by new evidence. 

So I agree that science is always changing, but I don't think (very unlikely) that the "basic components of" a powerful scientific theory change, at least not since modern physics.  The seven points easily apply for Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity. 

Edit: My goodness! No one here knows that 1 to 8 apply for successful theories? 

Edited March 7, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Jane_Doe]

I"m not sure your actual question here...   Do you just want a random theory to be sited that matches your random requirements 1-7?  (I say random because I don't know the logic behind their selection.)

[MormonVideoGame]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I"m not sure your actual question here...   Do you just want a random theory to be sited that matches your random requirements 1-7?  (I say random because I don't know the logic behind their selection.)

Yes please, a scientific theory that used to be accepted, but not anymore. 

[The Nehor]

Okay, I want you to find a religious theory superseded by science where:

1. Religious theory was delivered via a talking platypus.

2. The Illuminati endorsed said theory.

3. Four out of every five canonized saints publicly worked miracles while promulgating the theory.

4. The scientist who overturned the theory interviewed an angel to make sure it was overturned properly.

As to overturned consensus theories the Out of Asia theory has been discredited. Catastrophism replaced uniformatism. The nebular hypothesis, still believed, was once supplanted by other theories and then came back.

Not sure if any of those meet your arbitrary criteria you made up after a few minutes thought but do not really care either.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Fairmormon says, "The state of science is constantly changing. What science declared to be "true" in the 19th century is not "true" in the 21st century. It is reasonable to expect that some things that we consider to be scientifically "true" now may be revised according to additional knowledge that is gained in the future." I completely agree with fairmormon. Science is self-correcting, and that is the beauty of science.  However, some folks love to remind us that when they don't like a scientific theory such as global warming or evolution. 

Just to be clear, FairMormon itself does not hold a position on global warming.  We haven't talked about it much given it hasn't been a controversy needing to be explained or defended (this may change with Elder Oaks' comment) and we avoid political discussions as outside our mission.  I would guess from various related comments, there are many in FairMormon who see it as happening...likely a majority, don't have a clue how much they would generally weight what part man made, what part natural earth cycle.

As far as evolution goes, here is our page:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Evolution

When asked about it, generally we point them to:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Evolution/Official_stance

Comfort level in my opinion seems generally quite high.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[MormonVideoGame]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not sure if any of those meet your arbitrary criteria you made up after a few minutes thought but do not really care either.

perhaps you should read about successful scientific theories. 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 easily apply for Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity. 

You won't impress unless you point to a theory that was the equivalent to Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity.  

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Okay, I want you to find a religious theory superseded by science where:

Of course you "do not really care". Re-read my post. 

Edited March 7, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to be clear, FairMormon itself does not hold a position on global warming.  We haven't talked about it much given it hasn't been a controversy needing to be explained or defended.  I would guess there are many in FairMormon who see it as happening, don't have a clue how much they would generally weight what part man made, what part natural earth cycle.

but are any of them climate researchers? Yes there is a lot of controversy in the general public, not much in the climate field of expertise.  

Just like there is no debate in the New Testament field that Jesus existed. 

Edited March 7, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Fairmormon says, "The state of science is constantly changing. What science declared to be "true" in the 19th century is not "true" in the 21st century. It is reasonable to expect that some things that we consider to be scientifically "true" now may be revised according to additional knowledge that is gained in the future." I completely agree with fairmormon. Science is self-correcting, and that is the beauty of science.  However, some folks love to remind us that when they don't like a scientific theory such as global warming or evolution. 

Please point to a superseded scientific theory that 

1. was backed up by hundreds of research papers

2. made predictions 

3. made scientists highly confident

4. survived tough scientific scrutiny for at least two decades 

5. was used in multiple fields of science

6. was confirmed by observation 

7. was accepted by the scientific community since modern Physics began 

but years later was overturned by new evidence. 

So I agree that science is always changing, but I don't think (very unlikely) that the "basic components of" a powerful scientific theory change, it probably has never happened since modern physics. Elder Oaks was wise to say "Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife" 

Let me see if I can understand what your thesis is. Are you saying the statement, "Global warming is affecting agriculture and wildlife" is a scientific theory that meets the 7 criteria you laid out?

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Yes please, a scientific theory that used to be accepted, but not anymore. 

Here's a list of obsolete scientific theories, if that's what you're looking for. 

List of scientific theories that are no longer accepted.

[MormonVideoGame]

3 minutes ago, JarMan said:

. Are you saying the statement, "Global warming is affecting agriculture and wildlife" is a scientific theory that meets the 7 criteria you laid out?

 Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity easily meet the 7 points. 

[Jeanne]

I read your first paragraph and replaced the word science with Mormonism. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Fairmormon says, "The state of science is constantly changing. What science declared to be "true" in the 19th century is not "true" in the 21st century. It is reasonable to expect that some things that we consider to be scientifically "true" now may be revised according to additional knowledge that is gained in the future." I completely agree with fairmormon. Science is self-correcting, and that is the beauty of science.  However, some folks love to remind us that when they don't like a scientific theory such as global warming or evolution. 

Please point to a superseded scientific theory that 

1. was backed up by hundreds of research papers

2. made predictions 

3. made scientists highly confident

4. survived tough scientific scrutiny for at least two decades 

5. was used in multiple fields of science

6. was confirmed by observation 

7. was accepted by the scientific community since modern Physics began 

but years later was overturned by new evidence. 

So I agree that science is always changing, but I don't think (very unlikely) that the "basic components of" a powerful scientific theory change, it probably has never happened since modern physics. Elder Oaks was wise to say "Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife" 

LOL

circular, begging the question.  "since modern physics began" which means after the uncertainty principle was discovered/created, showing that physics could not tell us what ultimate reality is

really bad argument.  read some Kuhn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

http://www.peterbyrne.info/documents/sad0711Byrn3p.pdf

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[MormonVideoGame]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

ircular, begging the question.  "since modern physics began" which means after the uncertainty principle was discovered/created, showing that physics could not tell us what ultimate reality is

really bad argument.  read some Kuhn

very interesting, but I am not talking about "knowledge". Please point to one scientific theory (1-8 apply) that was later overturned by new evidence.  

[JarMan]

42 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

 Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity easily meet the 7 points. 

When you say "global warming" do you mean man-made global warming?

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

very interesting, but I am not talking about "knowledge". Please point to one scientific theory (1-8 apply) that was later overturned by new evidence.  

Sigh.  Like I said your argument is circular and self-evident and true "by definition" and therefore vacuous. 

From your quote:

Quote

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

So "by definition" your point is "true".  So what?

You have chosen to construct your argument based on "theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially."

and then asked for 

Quote

Please point to one scientific theory (1-8 apply) that was later overturned by new evidence."

NO evidence exists to overturn the theory yet you are asking for evidence to over turn the theory.  

Well I am looking for evidence that A=A!   So there!!

Fair is not arguing that the earth does not orbit the sun.  Your question appears pointless.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Fairmormon says, "The state of science is constantly changing. What science declared to be "true" in the 19th century is not "true" in the 21st century. It is reasonable to expect that some things that we consider to be scientifically "true" now may be revised according to additional knowledge that is gained in the future." I completely agree with fairmormon. Science is self-correcting, and that is the beauty of science.  However, some folks love to remind us that when they don't like a scientific theory such as global warming or evolution. 

 

The rest of your post becomes irrelevant.

Good you agree with FAIR and some people make mistakes.  So?  What is wrong with what you say FAIR said?

What's your point?

[MormonVideoGame]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

NO evidence exists to overturn the theory yet you are asking for evidence to over turn the theory.  

I said, "but years later was overturned by new evidence" 

I am not talking about current scientific theories, I am looking for a superseded scientific theory. 1 to 8 use to apply.  

13 minutes ago, JarMan said:

When you say "global warming" do you mean man-made global warming?

Yes 

Edited March 7, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Yes please, a scientific theory that used to be accepted, but not anymore. 

There are plenty of theories that have been overturned.  But why according to your seemingly obituary lists of requirements?

[JarMan]

If this thread is about whether or not man is causing global warming then I don't see what it has to do with Elder Oaks' talk. He didn't endorse that idea as far as I know. Am I missing something? Besides, the theory fails spectacularly on criteria number 2.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

perhaps you should read about successful scientific theories. 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 easily apply for Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity. 

You won't impress unless you point to a theory that was the equivalent to Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity.  

Of course you "do not really care". Re-read my post. 

There is no such thing as a "successful" scientific theory. There are only disproven ones and not disproven ones and a whole spectrum of confidence in between.

I do not care to impress you. Your modus operandi here tends to be to post some statistics, misinterpret them, and then speculate about them beyond the evidence and then demand that others disprove your assertions. If you were dumber you could be our President.

[MormonVideoGame]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

There is no such thing as a "successful" scientific theory. There are only disproven ones and not disproven ones and a whole spectrum of confidence in between.

I do not care to impress you. Your modus operandi here tends to be to post some statistics, misinterpret them, and then speculate about them beyond the evidence and then demand that others disprove your assertions. If you were dumber you could be our President.

or read what mfbukowski just quoted. "Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence."

What a waste of time 

Edited March 7, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

"If you were dumber you could be our President." - The Nehor

"The primary benefit of religions is that it purports to tell the truth. If it does it is useful. Most of the benefits are in the next life. I am not sure if it benefits society. Would not matter to me if it did not." - The Nehor 

"If they found out tomorrow that the gospel is tied to depression or struggling in life they would not disband the church or disavow the gospel." - The Nehor

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

or read what mfbukowski just quoted. "Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence."

What a waste of time 

Yes, that was YOUR quote from YOUR article supposedly substantiating your position on whatever your position was supposed to be.

Indeed a waste of time.  I still have no clue what this thread is supposed to be about.

Quote

What science declared to be "true" in the 19th century is not "true" in the 21st century.

This was the FAIR claim, which had nothing to do with your claim.

You want theories which were later overturned.  So it appears you want 19th century theories which were later overturned?  Seriously?  How many would you like?

Phrenology? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

Quote

 

Among the most notable developments in the history of pseudoscience in the 19th century are the rise of Spiritualism (traced in America to 1848), homeopathy (first formulated in 1796), and phrenology (developed around 1800). Another popular pseudoscientific belief that arose during the 19th century was the idea that there were canals visible on Mars. A relatively mild Christian fundamentalist backlash against the scientific theory of evolution foreshadowed subsequent events in the 20th century.

The study of bumps and fissures in people's skulls to determine their character, phrenology, was originally considered a science. It influenced psychiatry and early studies into neuroscience.[7] As science advanced, phrenology was increasingly viewed as a pseudoscience. Halfway through the 19th century, the scientific community had prevailingly abandoned it.[8]

Halfway through the century, iridology was invented by the Hungarian physician Ignaz von Peczely.[9] The theory would remain popular throughout the 20th century as well.[10]......

Among the most notable developments to pseudoscience in the 20th century are the rise of Creationism, the demise of Spiritualism, and the first formulation of ancient astronaut theories.

Reflexology, the idea that an undetectable life force connects various parts of the body to the feet and sometimes the hands and ears, was introduced in the USA in 1913 as 'zone therapy'.[17][18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience#19th_century

I still don't know what your point is and it seems no one else here does either.

That sure proves how stupid we are!!

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

"If you were dumber you could be our President." - The Nehor

"The primary benefit of religions is that it purports to tell the truth. If it does it is useful. Most of the benefits are in the next life. I am not sure if it benefits society. Would not matter to me if it did not." - The Nehor 

"If they found out tomorrow that the gospel is tied to depression or struggling in life they would not disband the church or disavow the gospel." - The Nehor

Aha!  You are able to quote!  Progress!

Still pointless.... 

This is not a video game.  You pushed the wrong button.  There are real people out here

Edited March 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

very interesting, but I am not talking about "knowledge". Please point to one scientific theory (1-8 apply) that was later overturned by new evidence.  

What is "knowledge"?

I would like to see some epistemology for your position - perhaps we would have something to discuss then